Superman stands up
Director Bryan Singer aids this super comeback
I could be a skeptic. I could complain that newcomer Brandon Routh doesn’t quite capture the playful charm of the late, great Christopher Reeves. I could also point out that Kate Bosworth (Blue Crush) is way too young to play a child-bearing, Pulitzer Prize-winning, less-fanciful-than-bitchy Lois Lane.
I could go on a tangent about how Lex Luther’s compulsive real estate scheming gets outright ridiculous. I could even point out how Superman’s use of x-ray vision is, at some points, downright creepy.
But I would be a killjoy. And who wants one of those on the advent of Superman’s summer blockbuster return?
Director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X2) follows up the Richard Donner films, about America’s most iconic superhero by introducing a new wave of fans to the legacy that has remained outdated since Christopher Reeve last donned those uncomfortably tight tights. Singer delivers an update that would hold its own against the disconcerted comic-book conservatives who insist that any follow-up is an unnecessary cash-grab.
Sticking close to the original Richard Donner film (which, for the record, wasn’t all that great), Singer restricts himself with more boundaries than are really necessary, making for a film that stands marginally between a sequel and a remake. However, the director’s fanboy devotion does show a genuine love for the legend.
The most pointed criticism should be targeted at the new Man of Steel, Brandon Routh.
Routh does not have the sexual mischievousness that Reeves exuded (remember those pink panties?) although back then, Lois Lane was unattached and far more willing to bend herself to his iron will.
Routh’s hero is more brooding and doleful, and his tricks don’t seem to appease the bitter and defensive Lane, who is still miffed that Superman left her high and dry before deciding to return just as suddenly as he left five years later. However, there is still loads of sexual tension between them, much to the ire of her new fiancé. This emotional complication gives the film more weight.
What Singer’s Superman does have is a considerably more eccentric and sinister Lex Luther. It’s high time that Kevin Spacey take on another villainous role, and here he shines as Superman’s arch nemesis. Spacey brings a palpable diabolism to Luther that is more capricious, more menacing, and far more fun to watch.
The big problem with Superman is that it wanders on far beyond the two-hour mark, as if in want of a satisfactory conclusion that never really arrives. But to dwell on this would, again, make me a skeptical killjoy.
After a summer chock full of massive duds (MI:3, X3, and The Da Vinci Code), who could complain about a popcorn flick with considerably more heart and panache than any of these flops. In the smarmy words of Lex Luthor: “Bring it on!”
Rating: VVVv
Treading water
Why M. Night Shyamalan is his own worst enemy
Though I was initially sitting on an outright 1 out of 5 dismissal for M. Night Shyamalan’s latest misstep, The Lady in the Water, I had to give the man an extra V for sheer audacity. This man will tell the story he wants to tell, regardless of coherence or verisimilitude. He’ll allow his child fantasies to roam unchecked, by featuring creepy crypto-creatures like sea nymphs, grassy dogs, and tree monkeys. And no matter how silly it gets, he’ll still blame you if you can’t wrap your head around it.
Without a doubt, the most entertaining aspect of Lady In The Water is the persona behind the camera.
Shyamalan (who directed modern classics like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable) is quickly showing signs of faltering. For starters, he feels it necessary to defend his own writing abilities within this film-by taking on an actual character role (instead of his usual “Hitchcock-esque” cameo) as an author who is convinced he’s writing the book that will change the world (oh, please!).
Shyamalan clearly anticipated the critical drubbing this film would get (just like his last film The Village got trashed) by lobbing a potshot at reviewers in advance: he writes in a character of a genre-whore critic and then casts him in an unfavourable light. Good one M.–let the audiences know how much the critics hate you.
Yet it should be noted that the problem with Lady is not so much Shyamalan the director. In fact he is a fine visionary student of film who understands how to exploit timing to evoke suspense. Instead, as always, the problem is Shyamalan the self-absorbed and arrogant writer who always sacrifices character for the sake of his discursive plots-the same cocky bastard who feels that the bedtime stories he tells his children are of interest or relevance to the mainstream audience.
The story in question begins with the discovery of Story. Not the story, but a sea-nymph (or “narf” as the film would have it) named Story (played by Bryce Dallas Howard of The Village). She has been sent from her “blue world” to the swimming pool of an apartment complex in order to inspire the aforementioned writer to change the world.
She must do so before a “scrunt”-one of many grass dogs from the same world-can make her a substitute for Kibbles & Bits. Should Story succeed in her celestial duties, the “scrunt” must follow the blue code, and cease to attack so that she can take a ride back home on a giant eagle.
However, the “scrunt” in question has gone all Dirty Harry, and fails to observe the code-something that is enforced by three rogue monkey-like creatures that are seemingly made from tree branches.
In order for Story to return home safely, she must enlist the aid of certain humans with special powers who are methodically defined as the Healer, the Guardian, the Symbologist, and the Guild.
So, basically, for the sea nymph to stick around and catch her return fare on the giant eagle, the healer, the symbologist, the guild, and the guardian must protect her from the grass dog until the three tree monkeys return to punish it (still with me?).
Though plots of such hallucinogenic fantasy have made its way through audience favour in the past, this one tries to with a toddler’s attention to detail and development. The most exemplary of this lack is the manner in which the characters in the film show the least amount of discrimination towards a possibly schizoid narrative with all of the aforementioned plot deviations. You tell them that a hound made of grass is waiting in the backyard and they wouldn’t think twice about grabbing the lawn mower.
Part of the fun of a fantasy-hits-home movie is watching the skeptical characters get convinced of the super-natural that we know exists in their world. As they are reared towards believing, the audience has enough conviction to do so as well.
But in Shyamalan’s newly discovered orbit, the characters are keenly willing to believe without the first hint of doubt, as if they were the ones watching a movie and not us.
So while Lady in the Water runs on its own tangents, the audience is left behind to scratch their heads and wonder what they did to break M. Night Shyamalan.
Rating: VV
Electric murder?
The electric car plays murder victim in this alarming doc
The catastrophic events of Hurricane Katrina has indicted a new terrorist invading North American soil: climate change.
In response, two eco-conscious documentaries have set out to appeal to the dormant activist in all of us. Earlier in the year we saw former “next president” Al Gore, in a slightly embittered calm, dissect the facts and stats of global warming in a truly foreboding and menacing fashion in An Inconvenient Truth. That film performed well, raising awareness for those who didn’t already know (present company included) about the full impact of our actions on the environment.
Though Truth ably instilled fear for what our actions do to the planet, it offered no satisfying solutions. Riding sidecar to the Gore film is Who Killed the Electric Car?, a documentary-whodunit that reveals how one workable solution was taken around back and given the Old Yeller treatment.
There was indeed a fleet of new electric vehicles, the EV1’s, introduced by GM in 1996 as a way to curb rising gas prices, high maintenance fees, and emissions. These sleek and silent rides were spotted along California highways-with drivers who included Mel Gibson and Tom Hanks-promising to be the future in transportation. Seriously, all you had to do was plug it in at night, that’s it, no gas needed, ever. Unfortunately in 2003 GM recalled the fleet and hauled the last of the EV1’s from customer’s driveways and crushed them in the Arizona desert.
Director (and former EV1 driver) Chris Paine embarked on a thorough probe of the history of the EV1 in order to identify the culprits behind the masochistic recall and annihilation.
Between the oil companies who still have trillions of dollars in business waiting for them in the ground, to the politicians who leaned on C.A.R.B to reverse the Zero Emissions Mandate, to GM who foresaw their own groundbreaking product as the demise of their bottomless maintenance fees, it becomes pretty evident that the crime was a group effort. Even the consumers contributed to the demise of the electric car. It’s basic economics. If enthusiastic demand was there, than no one, not even the GM giants or the Bush Administration could defy conventional wisdom and kill this thing.
Although the two eco-docs An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car? do not fit into the mold of typical summer entertainment, the condensing smog and rising temperatures make a compelling argument for why you should see these films. These are not cinematic art on exhibition. This isn’t movie magic. It’s reality, and it’s scary.
Rating: VVVv
Clerks II gets served
More colour but less lustre the second time around
Clerks II breaks out of the black-and-white confines of its low-budget predecessor and into bright colour. However, in this age of massive studio budgets Clerks II tries to hard to be too many things it’s not.
Kevin Smith’s follow-up to his 1994 cult hit, Clerks, simply reminds us of what the original had going for it, which sadly does not factor in here. Back in the day Smith was a no-name wannabe director in his mid-20’s who sold his prized comic book collection to write, direct, and produce the film on a budget not much bigger than a clerk’s annual salary.
Fast-forward 12 years, and Kevin Smith is now a household name. He’s that guy who made the now notorious New Jersey Trilogy (Clerks, Mallrats, and Chasing Amy), the guy who knows the Weinstein brothers on a first-name basis, and the same guy who punished his fan base with Jersey Girl and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. So where is the appeal in Clerks II?
Kevin Smith’s dynamism certainly hit a brick wall after Chasing Amy, which still stands as his strongest picture. Nothing spells that out more than when a director seeks to capitalize on his original success creating a cartoon series, action figures, comic book, and now an unnecessary sequel (think George Lucas style cash-grab).
With Clerks II, Smith simply sits on the nostalgia for the first film by rehashing many of the same plot elements. Brian O’Halloran reprises his role as Dante the Quick Stop checkout clerk who cannot decide between the woman he thinks he wants and the woman that is actually right for him (you think he would have learned from the first go around).
Randal (Jeff Anderson) is the same jerk behind the video store counter, still contaminating the service by discussing his affinity for ass to mouth (yes, all manner of vulgarity is to be expected). Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Smith himself) are back to their old tricks (chilling and selling dope), but this time with Christ apparently on their side.
Newcomers to the Smith universe are Rosario Dawson, playing one of the two ladies on Dante’s shoulder, and Trevor Ferhman, a bible-thumping uber-nerd whose devotion to Jesus is only trumped by his fidelity to the Lord of the Rings.
There are brief cameos from Smith alumni Jason Lee and Ben Affleck, but these do not actually produce anything amusing.
However, a Star Wars vs. Lord of the Rings dispute is funny in a geeky kinda way, and works as an effective representation of the age gap between Smith and the younger audiences he is attempting to appeal to with this film.
Then there’s the prologue, which features the wittiest quip of the film, which suggests that even 9/11 barely stirred these pothead loafers.
Much of what frustrates Clerks II was present in the original as well. There was a clumsiness about the screenplay, two-dimensional acting from the amateur leads (particularly Brian O’Halloran), and a goofy fanaticism that threatened to lose its audience at times. However, these were forgivable considering the meagre production values and the novelty of the original film.
Clerks II has more of the same faults, but no financial limitations or underdog charisma to excuse it. Where the original had audacity and ingénue, this gift to die-hard fans descends into the grossly mundane. Smith should give up filmmaking now and follow George Lucas into the video game business.
Rating: VV
Hit the road
New indie flick revitalizes the great American road trip
In the 23-year gap between the ill-begotten family road trips of Harold Ramis’s National Lampoon’s Vacation and the current road trip film Little Miss Sunshine, the portrait of the family unit has been distorted significantly. Where the old Griswold clan had to resiliently cope with a haphazardous America to arrive at an amusement park, the hazards that hinder today’s American family are entirely internal.
No pimps or greedy garage greasers line this highway. Instead, the new obstacles come by way of the rancorous animosity between the belligerent patriarch, who won’t accept even the smallest failure, the misogynistic Granddad who frequents his stash of heroin, the suicidal uncle who requires constant vigilance lest he be able to reach for a razorblade, and the teenage mute who refuses to say how much he hates it all (though he may write it down).
Long gone are the days of Chevy Chase. Now we embrace the families that will spawn the Napoleon Dynamite generation. So goes Little Miss Sunshine, co-directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris (a husband-and-wife team on their first foray into feature films after making music videos for the likes of REM and Janet Jackson). Here, Little Miss Sunshine doesn’t quite hit the mark, but makes a valiant effort.
Aptly titled after the pre-pubescent beauty pageant that marks the film’s strange destination Little Miss Sunshine introduces us to the Hoovers, a rag-tag nucleus of modern-day America frequently on the verge of breaking down.
Richard Hoover (Greg Kinnear) is a motivational speaker who is attempting to sell his nine-step program for success without any first-hand experience to speak of. Richard is constantly under the scrutiny of his wife, Sheryl (Toni Collette), a seemingly unemployed matriarch always attempting to make ends meet and keep heads cool.
They are joined by Richard’s foul-mouthed junk-sniffing father, referred to only as Grandpa (Alan Arkin), who was kicked out of a retirement home for substance abuse, and Sheryl’s dangerously suicidal brother, Frank (Steve Carrell), a former Proust scholar who was recently discharged from a hospital for the lack of insurance coverage, whose depression stems from the bitter collapse of his career and the loss of his boyfriend to an adversary.
The eldest of the Hoover offspring is Dwayne (Paul Dano from L.I.E.), a teenager striving to be a fighter pilot, who has taken a vow of silence (a rather extreme condition that seemingly lacks conviction) which should last until he is admitted into the Air Force Academy. He also cites philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche as inspiration for his self-imposed censorship.
Olive (Abigail Breslin from Keane) is the inquisitive seven-year-old would-be beauty queen whose admittance by default into the Little Miss Sunshine competition-a previous pageant contender was discovered using diet pills, which are illegal-is the reason for the Hoovers’ trip to California.
The Hoovers pack into the excessively metaphorical antique VW bus (seemingly fresh from Woodstock) and begin their journey to what may be an embodiment the American dream-a disturbing gloss and plastic glamour ceremony developed to tinge the innocent. Accordingly, antics ensue, but not the National Lampoon kind.
Dayton and Faris make a stalwart entry into directing features with a darkly screwball comedy that takes strides towards its goal-to break the mold of conventional films about family. Though recent films have attempted motions towards that same ambition (The Family Stone to name one), none have succeeded (save for the dark, divorce lit-flick The Squid and The Whale).
The film prides itself on being brashly eccentric and waywardly quirky, though loses its touch of genuine ingenuity at times-a fault that can be attributed to Michael Arndt’s flawed and under-developed screenplay. While reaching for laughs by taking the unconventional detours, Arndt forgets that “odd for the sake of odd” does not always make for a satisfactory chuckle, and often verges on implausible.
Too often writers revel in their “indie” status as a license to be proactively strange (as if the lack of a mainstream audience makes unexplained oddities forgivable and applaudable). Both Napoleon Dynamite and Garden State come to mind.
The same problem leaks over into the narrative to produce plot holes. There is no shortage of friction among the Hoovers, yet the resolutions come premature; as if someone just added lube into this shifty vehicle so that things run smoothly again. Not that Arndt’s work is entirely lacking in substance. The screenplay is given a fine tune-up thanks to the loving touch of Dayton and Faris, who, aside from keeping the film from becoming a shambles, use their musical background to the best of opportunities in this film.
The couple combined the work of composer Mychael Danna and musical group DeVotchKa for a hybrid pop and folk soundtrack featuring drums, violins, and accordions that are simply pitch-perfect for a comedy of this order. The animated and uplifting score makes me wish the Oscars still had an award for best musical score in a comedy.
The stellar ensemble works of the directors, actors, and most importantly, that wonderful music will certainly assist in distinguishing this new destination for family comedies. The road may be mired by ditches and potholes, but this film has enough brazen wit to roll with them.
Veering steadily off the path paved by National Lampoon’s Vacation, Little Miss Sunshine manages to sputter along with a sparse supply of fuel but enough momentum to be this summer’s winning comedy.
Opens in theatres August 4. Check out The Varsity’s interview with Sunshine directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris in this issue.
Rating: VVV
Two Raisins in The Sun
A chat with newcomers Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton
Little Miss Sunshine directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris have been in the entertainment business for so long that you wonder what took them so long to make their first feature film. And then it hits you-having worked together on music videos for the likes of REM, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Janet Jackson, the husband and wife team were probably having too much fun to think about long narratives and plot arcs.
The unconventional California couple Dayton and Faris-the former sporting pinstripes and his usual bowler hat while the latter is in polka dots-it becomes apparent that their working relationship is a well-balanced one. He corrects her when she’s mistaken, while she finishes his sentences.
The couple met in college while Dayton was a film student and Faris was studying dance. They found an interesting medium between their fields: Dayton began to film Faris’ dance work while she assisted with his documentaries. And this was all before they started dating.
Opportunity knocked for Dayton and Faris when a friend at a record company asked them to direct a musical series called “The Cutting Edge” for a little network called MTV.
Dayton: That was our grad school. We were very fortunate to come out of school just as MTV started.
Faris: We couldn’t believe somebody was paying us to go out and make little films. We got to interview tons of bands and people who we loved. It was an interesting time in music. It was sort of mid-eighties, when alternative music was starting to happen. We just learned a ton and then also made a lot of connections and friends in the music business so that when we stopped that show, we started to do music videos.
The Varsity: How do you manage your working relationship on set as a married couple?
D: It’s something we don’t think a lot about. It just happens. I think that the key to making it work is that we respect each other a lot. I really look forward to what Val’s going to say, (because) it’s not what I think. We’re very different and so what keeps it alive for us is that we never know what the other person is going to say.
F: We did work together for six years before we were a couple. So I think that we established that working relationship so firmly that I never even think that I’m working with my husband. I’m working with Jonathan. And I’ve been working with Jonathan for 20 years.
V: How do you settle disputes? Does it take a third party?
F: We should.
D: Yeah, we have a person who travels with us and he listens and then…
F: Well, in a way it does work out that way sometimes. Like you’ll have the DP (Director of Photography) in this discussion, and he’ll be the tiebreaker.
D: That’s actually true. Well, there are a couple of ways that we resolve arguments. And we do argue a lot, but not on set.
F: I think argue is one way to describe it, or discuss. We get in to these discussions over things about what’s the right way to do this. You could say that it’s an argument, but I think that working with somebody else, it’s kind of like what a lot of directors do in their heads. You’re going back and forth about an idea and we just do it in a conversation. And we usually do resolve the issues just with the two of us. And if there’s some real head-butting period then…
D: …we’ll ask somebody else. But, a lot of times it’s really about whoever feels most passionate about something. So if I recognize that Val feels really strongly about something, I will just say, “You know what, let’s do it the way you’re talking. It works.”
V: Tell me about how you got the perfectly outlandish music for the film.
F: We didn’t want a score that was just kind of a little bed underneath the scenes. We wanted the music to be prominent and have a real presence throughout the movie. We were listening to the radio and heard DeVotchKa, and it was the first time we heard what felt like the music for this movie. It was like it was written for the movie. So we ended up using some existing work that they had already done. And then we had a great composer, Mychael Danna, who’s Canadian, come in and work with DeVotchKa. He wrote some music that they played. And it was really this great sort of organic but unconventional way of scoring a movie. We didn’t use a lot of music in the movie. We cut the whole movie without any music in it. We wanted it all to work without the support of music. I think both of us feel too many movies rely on music too much to make up for what the film’s not doing.
D: The other thing I really hate in movies is when you hear a pop song and it just feels like product placement. It just feels like at the very end, they said like “Hey what are the hot bands?” and then they drop some song in.
F: Yeah like there are six songs in the credits that are on the soundtrack.
D: So the music you hear in the movie is stuff that we really love and were really careful to put in.
V: You made this film before The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Why did you decide to cast Steve Carrell?
D: We knew his work for years. With all the parts we wanted to choose actors who weren’t the obvious choice; people who would have to stretch a little bit to do what these roles required. (Steve) wasn’t the obvious choice for Frank, but we met with him and after talking about the character we just felt that he was perfect for it. He could be funny, like you’ve seen him before, but he also had such a soulful quality. And that’s, I think, what people responded to in 40-Year-Old Virgin. People hadn’t seen someone as-
F: Human.
D: …human and vulnerable, but also funny. I think that what you’ve seen him do in these other films now, and The Office, you’ll see that there’s even a greater range in our film.
F: It’s actually unfortunate that he’s gotten so famous, because we have to keep answering questions about him. It was kind of nice that when we were shooting it, no one knew who he was. Like we’d say “Oh yes, we have Toni Collette, Greg Kinnear, Steve Carrell” and they’d be like, “Who’s he?”
